The rest of the infield for the Mets in 2027 is somewhat clearer than first base. For now you could make a prediction for next season based upon what was projected for 2026 but never really evolved as anticipated.
At second base Marcus Semien has proven to be a consummate professional though he started off very slowly with the bat. He has demonstrated star quality performance defensively and also used his legs effectively. The power shown previously in his career was not there initially, but after everyone (including me) wrote off the odd Brandon Nimmo trade as a total disaster, at this point Semien is actually exceeding the former Mets outfielder in both home runs and RBIs. The difference remains batting average with a gap of just 23 points in Nimmo’s favor during his prolonged slump driving him down from the over .300 plateau he’d enjoyed earlier in the year.
Right now Nimmo earns $20.5 million per year and will continue to do so through 2030. That is a financial commitment of over $100 million for what he can do. Right now Semien earns $72 million between now and his contract expiration in 2028. That $28 million gap is not looking like such a bad differential for now.
At shortstop, obviously a healthy Francisco Lindor will be back as he can win games with his glove, his bat and his legs. He’s a five time All Star, a four time Silver Slugger and a two time Gold Glove winner. When on the field he is a leader. His annual salary of $34.1 million runs now through the 2031 season. Unless you’re taking on a similarly large contract in exchange he’s not really tradeable nor should you necessarily want to do so.
Third base is the one area where the Mets may have something of unpredictability. Bo Bichette was hailed as a great arrival and took heat off the front office after they missed out on other stellar offensive free agents. He’s come to life since June began and it’s possible by year end he will post numbers more in line with what was expected. Here’s the problem. As a free agent he’s earning $42 million per year. For a guy with a career batting average of .289 with power and RBI production that’s not terrible in this day and age. When this season ends Bichette has an option to return for the same $42 million or the Mets have a $5 million buyout. Ouch.
Suppose Bichette finishes with a flourish and approaches that .289 batting average. He then needs to decide if he wants to test the open market again or not. Right now his contract with the Mets is only guaranteed for this year. This same option for 2027 returns for 2028 as well. He might feel a slightly lower annual rate but spread over a greater number of years is a preferable way to ensure his financial future.
On the flip side the Mets may decide if he ends 2026 with a batting average sub .250 that he’s simply not worth another $42 million in payroll dollars for the 2027 (and 2028) seasons. They could exercise the $5 million buyout and use that money to address other needs.
Here’s the rub. If he goes, then who plays third base? Obviously the long term experiments with Mark Vientos and Brett Baty have not resulted in the type of productivity to make anyone feel comfortable with either of them being given the job. Jorge Polanco could shift across the diamond if another first base option evolves. None are jumping out as necessarily better than Bichette but all are quite a bit less expensive.
Then there’s the matter of catcher. Francisco Alvarez has shown offensive ability and defensive skills but neither at All Star levels. He’s had a number of injuries in his youth and it’s possible that he will continue to progress as he matures. Luis Torrens is a capable backup but doesn’t have the offensive talent to warrant day to day use. You could probably write Alvarez’s name in ink for the 2027 season at catcher.
3B is looking less rosy than it did in spring training. Bo, Baty, and Vientos have badly underperformed, and so far, in his repeat of AA, Reimer has not looked better (.219/.347/.394), except that he surprisingly has 12 of 14 steals in 45 games. But, again, .182 at home, .253 on the road. His defense is improving.
ReplyDeleteBut high Ks and very un-clutch with RISP. A Long Way From Ready, it appears.
Bichette has player options in 2027 and 2028. From the inside, he can see that this team is not going to challenge for a world championship soon, so my guess is that he opts out. The Mets have a $5M buyout option they can use as well. Too much salary to carry for the level of performance we are getting. At third, there is nothing after that beyond Baty, so the Mets will ride Baty until they can acquire a prospect that is fairly well developed.
ReplyDelete1. Admit a mistake here
ReplyDelete2. Trade Bo before the deadline for a piece
3. Play Baty there for the rest of the season
Good Point Mack, Trade Bo, Pay the sunk cost.
DeleteClarification on his contract. Mets do not have any buyout. They pay Bo $5M if he opts out. Also, no trade clause.
ReplyDeleteNo is here until Bo wants to opt out.
Only Bo Knows…
The “savings” on Semien’s contract were squandered by Stearns by: 1 year Manaea, or 2 years Montas, or 1.5 years for Polanco, or…
ReplyDeleteRVH has the details of the contract correct. This is why I have indicated that it makes most sense for him to stay if he performs in the 15-20HR range and 250 batting average, which is about as high a projection given his current performance that I can imagine. Stearns has not done a good job on FA contracts. I agree with his concern about declining ability with age and with his desire to have opportunities for prospects as they mature, but. (admittedly relying on my own rational choice models and other norms that I prefer - so feel free to disagree) 1. He has been inconsistent because he seems to have less of a discount rate for prior injuries than he does for age above 30. 2. His discount rate for age is by my standards too high, and may or may not take adequate account of decline at different positions, and may not further amend that rate best on likely outcomes of differential rates of decline at different positions. (I'll explain in a post). 3. Creating space for prospects is desirable in the abstract, pending at least two factors: drafting and development. Right now the former may be reasonably good, the latter may not be. 4. Differential development by positions cross referenced against positions of free agents.
ReplyDeleteTo make concrete through examples. Stearns obviously believed that the discount of Polanco's value based on his injury history was not enough to make Alonso a safer or better choice given the discount he applied to age related decline on Alonso's performance AND some view he must have had about the readiness of a player in the organization to be available and perform sufficiently after a two year period (when Polanco's contract expires). I mean if you believe in analytics, then this is the way you pose issues to yourself. For completeness, even on this simple example, you would have to add another factor: either the availability of a prospect and a rational expectation of performance after 2 years or the costs and benefits of optaining another free agent or the costs and benefits of potential trade for 1st basemen. If you are serious about analytics, it's all this and more, for every decision you make. Every one. The one thing you can't be is casual in your option set that you have to investigate.
So what happens with some of these decisions is that assigning numbers under uncertainty is somewhere between a guess and a nightmare, so you tend to look at the numbers that you can have more confidence in, and that's why I say it probably boiled down for Stearns to discounting for age degradation v discounting for degradation due to injury history, etc.